On Mon, Apr 15, 2013, at 10:58, Martti Kühne wrote: > On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 2:56 AM, Random832 <random...@fastmail.us> wrote: > > Okay, but why not work with a unicode code point as an int? > > -1 from me. > It is utter madness to waste 32 (64 on x86_64) bits for a single > glyph.
A. current usage is char[4] B. int is 32 bits on x86_64. There's no I in LP64. > According to a quick google those chars can become as wide as 6 > bytes, No, they can't. I have no idea what your source on this is. > and believe me you don't want that, as long as there are > mblen(3) / mbrlen(3)... I don't know how these functions are relevant to your argument.
